THE WISH NOT TO KNOW

--part1_146.22ddd85.2afbe696_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Why have psychological approaches to the study of power not become the
dominant interpretative strategy?

I suggested in recent posts that those with a knowledge of psychology
must begin to get out of their shells in order to "encounter the manner in
which unconscious phantasies are PLAYED OUT ON THE STAGE OF SOCIAL REALITY."

In his important book, DERACINATION, Walter Davis states that "History
is a practice grounded in a system of guarantees...That system has as its
deepest motive and appeal the assurance that certain things will not be known
(p. 7)."

One would expect that the "psychoanalysis of culture and history" would
be the master social science, that the disciplines of anthropology, sociology
and history, not to mention to the humanities, would be dominated and
permeated by the effort to ascertain the PSYCHIC SOURCES of societal ideas,
ideologies, events, etc.

The objective would be to explain the purpose and meaning of cultural
and historical process as a reflection and articulation of unconscious
conflicts, anxieties, fantasies, etc.

We must entertain the view that disciplines exist PRECISELY IN ORDER TO
NOT KNOW THINGS, that the fundamental meaning and purpose of much (academic)
thought is to NOT KNOW (this is what Freud meant by "repression").

Davis talks about the horror of history, and the willingness to begin
to recognize that the horror "comes from us and not from somewhere else."

The fundamental resistance--the essence of contemporary thought--lies
in the idea that what is happening out there COMES FROM SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN
OURSELVES. History, sociology and anthropology as conventionally practiced
represent the effort to SPLIT OFF THE SUBJECT FROM THAT WHICH THE SUBJECT
CREATES AND DESIRES, to pretend that the horrors (war, genocide, the atom
bomb, etc.) come from discourses that are SEPARATE FROM THE HUMAN BEINGS WHO
CREATE THE THEM.

Everyone strives to know nothing by splitting off the self into culture
and history, then pretending that it's all coming from "up above" or "out
there," as if we are not constantly in the process of creating culture and
history through the externalization and projection of our own unconscious
fantasies, anxieties and conflicts.

Of course, reality is a social construction. Of course, cognition is
shaped by discourses that are "culturally constituted." However, the
fundamental question is WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THOSE FORMS OF SOCIAL REALITY
THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE CONSTRUCTED?

The academic enterprise builds upon the effort to avoiding posing and
answering this question. It's not that "the subject does not exist" (the
current hegemonic discourse), but that the academic enterprise strives to
DENY THE REALITY OF THE SUBJECT in order to pretend that HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT
RESPONSIBLE.

This is mysterious obfuscation. It's as if it all happens by itself in
a realm separate from human beings. It's fundamentally a religious
perspective.

With regards,

Richard Koenigsberg

Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D.
Director, Library of Social Science

--part1_146.22ddd85.2afbe696_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>     Why have psychological approaches to the study of power not become the dominant interpretative strategy?       
     
     I suggested in recent posts that those with a knowledge of psychology must begin to get out of their shells in order to "encounter the manner in which unconscious phantasies are PLAYED OUT ON THE STAGE OF SOCIAL REALITY." 
 
      In his important book, DERACINATION, Walter Davis states that "History is a practice grounded in a system of guarantees...That system has as its deepest motive and appeal the assurance that certain things will not be known (p. 7)." 
 
      One would expect that the "psychoanalysis of culture and history" would be the master social science, that the disciplines of anthropology, sociology and history, not to mention to the humanities, would be dominated and permeated by the effort to ascertain the PSYCHIC SOURCES of societal ideas, ideologies, events, etc. 
 
      The objective would be to explain the purpose and meaning of cultural and historical process as a reflection and articulation of unconscious conflicts, anxieties, fantasies, etc. 
 
      We must entertain the view that disciplines exist PRECISELY IN ORDER TO NOT KNOW THINGS, that the fundamental meaning and purpose of much (academic) thought is to NOT KNOW (this is what Freud meant by "repression"). 
 
      Davis talks about the horror of history, and the willingness to begin to recognize that the horror "comes from us and not from somewhere else." 
 
      The fundamental resistance--the essence of contemporary thought--lies in the idea that what is happening out there COMES FROM SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN OURSELVES. History, sociology and anthropology as conventionally practiced represent the effort to SPLIT OFF THE SUBJECT FROM THAT WHICH THE SUBJECT CREATES AND DESIRES, to pretend that the horrors (war, genocide, the atom bomb, etc.) come from discourses that are SEPARATE FROM THE HUMAN BEINGS WHO CREATE THE THEM. 
 
      Everyone strives to know nothing by splitting off the self into culture and history, then pretending that it's all coming from "up above" or "out there," as if we are not constantly in the process of creating culture and history through the externalization and projection of our own unconscious fantasies, anxieties and conflicts. 
 
      Of course, reality is a social construction. Of course, cognition is shaped by discourses that are "culturally constituted." However, the fundamental question is WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THOSE FORMS OF SOCIAL REALITY THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE CONSTRUCTED? 
 
      The academic enterprise builds upon the effort to avoiding posing and answering this question. It's not that "the subject does not exist" (the current hegemonic discourse), but that the academic enterprise strives to DENY THE REALITY OF THE SUBJECT in order to pretend that HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE. 
 
      This is mysterious obfuscation. It's as if it all happens by itself in a realm separate from human beings. It's fundamentally a religious perspective. 
 
With regards, 
 
Richard Koenigsberg 
 
 
Richard Koenigsberg, Ph. D. 
Director, Library of Social Science</HTML>

--part1_146.22ddd85.2afbe696_boundary--